1989 (2) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Under the said assessment order, the total demand was Rs. 17,53,282.43. But as the petitioner had paid the admitted tax to the tune of Rs. 7,79,481.62 and also availed of some rebate, the petitioner was directed to pay the balance tax of Rs. 9,70,329.42. This order was ultimately challenged before the Tribunal in second appeal and the Sales Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 73(C) of 1979-80 disposed of on 6th January, 1980 allowed the appeal, set aside the order disallowing concessional rate of tax as claimed and remitted the case back on remand to the assessing officer with a direction to allow the concessional rate of tax as claimed if the declarations in form-9 are otherwise found to be in order. Subsequent to this order of the Tribunal,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficer, Ganjam-I Circle, Berhampur [1983] 54 STC 22. Both these decisions fully support the contention of Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the two Bench decisions of this Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that opposite party No. 3 committed a gross error of law in rejecting the petitioner's application for refund. 3.. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Revenue in this case, yet the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department, raises two contentions in support of the order of refusal passed by opposite party No. 3, namely,- (i) in view of section 14-D of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the order of the Sales Tax Officer ....